Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title: Spellbound Development Group Inc. v. Pacific Handy Cutter Inc. et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 6, 2012

TITLE: SPELLBOUND DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC.
v.
PACIFIC HANDY CUTTER INC. ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOCUMENTS MUST BE FILED UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is an Application for an Order to File Certain Documents Under Seal or, Alternatively for an Order Authorizing Defendants to File Documents Normally ("Application") lodged by Defendants Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc., Front Line Sales, Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). See Application (Dkt. 380). Defendant seeks to file under seal the following documents:

* Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2

* Exhibits A, B, and C to Declaration of Ryan C. Williams in Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2

* Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3; and

* Exhibits C, D, E, and F to Declaration of Ryan C. Williams in Support of Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 3

At a hearing on November 7, 2011, the Court informed the parties that it is not inclined to accept any more filings under seal. Neither party objected.

The Court believes that the documents at issue here should not be filed under seal and, if filed normally, would not violate the Protective Order issued on July 7, 2010. See Order (Dkt. 55). For that reason, the Court previously rejected Defendants' attempt to file these documents under seal. See Order (Dkt. 370).

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE on or before January 10, 2012, why Defendants' documents should not be filed normally--that is, not under seal. If Plaintiff believes these documents should be filed under seal, Plaintiff shall: (1) file a redacted version of the documents; and

(2) lodge a brief of no more than 15 pages that:

* Identifies by page number and, if possible, by line number, the particular information that must be protected

* Quotes this information sufficiently to indicate which specific statements or facts merit protection

* Explains why this information must be protected and explains the need for protection in more detail than simply citing the Protective Order (Dkt. 55)

If Plaintiff believes these documents should be filed under seal and thus lodges a brief by January 9, 2011, Plaintiff may lodge its brief under seal. The Court will then decide whether to grant or deny Defendants' Application after reviewing Plaintiff's brief.

Alternatively, if Plaintiff files no brief on January 10, 2012, this Order GRANTS Defendants' Application (Dkt. 380) to file their documents normally--that is, not under seal.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

20120106

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.